In this recent case, a church going Plaintiff sued a Defendant in defamation for falsely asserting that the Plaintiff was gay. Despite the judge’s conclusion that this was untrue, that this caused a lot of turmoil for the Plaintiff in his church community and with his wife (effectively lowering the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of members of the Church), and that the “defendant’s statements were calculated to produce harm to the plaintiff in the Church,” the court nonetheless concluded that claim in defamation failed, leading to a dismissal of the claim with costs.
Although the Defendant did not raise this argument in his own defence, the Ontario Small Claims Court Deputy Judge relied on the legal test for defamation: whether the statements lowered the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person (aka: right-thinking members of society). The Deputy judge reasoned that it did not matter whether the church members viewed the Plaintiff less favourably: it was whether the community at large would view the Plaintiff less favourably. Against this backdrop, the judge reasoned that based on today’s societal norms “it is no longer shameful or disgraceful to be described as gay.”
After reviewing the evolution of the laws in Canada and in Ontario, the judge concluded, at paragraph 37:
“It appears, based on the evidence, that the Church’s opinions regarding homosexuality have not progressed in line with the opinions of Parliament, the Ontario Legislature and a majority of Canadians, but due to the test for defamation being of the “reasonable person”, I must dismiss this action despite the lowering of the plaintiff’s reputation in the Church due to the defendant’s words, which below I find the defendant has not proven to be true.”
Corion v Plummer, 2022 CanLII 84382 (ON SCSM)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscsm/doc/2022/2022canlii84382/2022canlii84382.html